21st Century Literature discussion

The next chapters focus more on Pete's emotional devastation and emptiness.

1.Occasionally Pete Snow might seem emotionally calloused and impenetrable. Do you find him a hard character to sympathize with because his actions are ambiguous and his verbal expressions are minimalist?

2. The author uses very simple dialogue in the novel, but at the same time, it seems that dialogue plays a key role in the novel. It is not accidental that virtually every chapter is accompanied by a session of Q&A that reveals Pete's personal drama.
Is it a successful way of exposing the inner pain of the main character?

3. Is the minimalistic approach in this novel in general a successful one?

4. Are Pete's clients 'worthy' characters in any novel? To put it simply, should impoverished, embittered, uneducated, conservative, dysfunctional people (also known as white trash) become the subject matter of a literary novel? If yes, why does literary fiction focus very little on such people?

P.S. The questions are only a stimulus for a discussion. If you do not like them or think they are irrelevant, feel free to ignore them and post whatever you find appropriate.

Minimalist dialogue seems to be a mainstay when dealing with rural characters, but I don't know that I'd call this a minimalist novel. I mentioned in another thread that my main issue with this book was repetitiveness. I feel like incidents are being repeated and hammered rather than hinted out. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by a minimalist approach?

This is exactly what I meant. Characters are using very simple phrases and words, and Henderson is not relying too much on exposing their inner feelings or emotions. His style reminds me of Hemingway and the debate about the Literary Iceberg Theory.

How much does the author hide? Does he hide intentionally? Is the rustic simplicity the only way to show what he is trying to tell us?

I also agree with you that it is somehow repetitive in its nature. It is as if the plot is not moving forward very fast. It is as if Pete's life is a soulless routine of the same events.

Ah, yep, I can see that. Most these characters, Pete included, are hard enough used by life to play things close to the chest. Henderson definitely uses actions to show character for the most part, and I think he does it effectively.

I like your interpretation of the receptiveness as serving a larger purpose in revealing Pete's routine. But I'm not sure I'd call it soulless; maybe more soul-crushing at times?

Whitney wrote: "maybe more soul-crushing at times"

You are right. His professional experience and how some of his clients behave can be hollowing him out, and it can be soul-crushing, but there is still a lot of humanity and compassion in him.

For your fourth point: since William Faulkner, Flannery O'Conner and Cormac McCarthy are three of my favorite writers, I've never really considered these types of characters to be neglected by literature. And these setting seem to have enjoyed a renaissance with writers like Harry Crews, Daniel Woodrell and William Gay.

I agree - these types of characters are a fixture in American literature, but maybe these types of characters belong exclusively to American literary landscape.

Zulfiya wrote: "The next chapters focus more on Pete's emotional devastation and emptiness.

1.Occasionally Pete Snow might seem emotionally calloused and impenetrable. Do you find him a hard character to sympath..."

Pete Snow is not sympathetic but I don't think that is the result of the author's writing style. Pete is extremely immature. He feels unloved by his father, so he cuts him out of his life. He's pissed at his wife, but instead of dealing with it, he leaves and seems to forget about his daughter. And, he's a drunk. Sometimes I thought he had a good heart, but he then he does something stupid and childish.

Do you think alcoholism is an escape for him or is he simply too weak-willed to deal with life and/or his own immaturity?

Zulfiya wrote: "Do you think alcoholism is an escape for him or is he simply too weak-willed to deal with life and/or his own immaturity?"

Both, as he is escaping from his inability to deal with the problems in his life, created, in part, by his immaturity.

Since the subject of whether or not a character is sympathetic comes up quite a bit in book discussions, I'd like to delve into it a bit more; because I've never understood why people consider it so important, or in many cases why it's even relevant.

Pete is a very flawed person, but does that make him unsympathetic? When you say he's not sympathetic, what does that mean? I've known plenty of people (some like Pete), that I'd avoid like the plague, but I still feel some sympathy for their position in life, as well as for their flaws. IS it important that Pete be considered sympathetic? If so, why?

I think Pete has sympathy for the kids he tries to help, but I don't think he is sympathetic. Perhaps pitiful is the adjective I would use. I don't dislike Pete. I suspect he might be an enjoyable companion before he gets too drunk. But he needs to get himself together and get on with life.

So I do not think it is important for a character to be sympathetic. It is important, I think, for there to be a likeable or relatable character. And Pete falls into that arena, as I have known a few Pete's over the years.

Linda wrote: "So I do not think it is important for a character to be sympathetic. It is important, I think, for there to be a likeable or relatable character. And Pete falls into that arena, as I have known a few Pete's over the years. "

He is definitely 'redeemable' in the secular meaning of this word, meaning that he does not deserve bad things that (might) happen to him. This is the most intriguing part of literary fiction. In that sense, virtually everyone is 'redeemable'.

Zulfiya wrote: "Linda wrote: "So I do not think it is important for a character to be sympathetic. It is important, I think, for there to be a likeable or relatable character. And Pete falls into that arena, as I ..."

Exactly, Pete's character is shown to be a very real human being. He has dark and bright sides to his character.

I am just finding this book so disappointing. I don't get the hype. I don't like Pete, but I have really enjoyed books with unlikeable main characters. I just find the whole thing pretty dull--too much Pete, too much Cecil, needs more Rachel, what about Katie?

I will finish, and I am hoping it pulls together for me.

I find that I am able to sympathize with Pete at times, but other times I few him as an ass, to be frank. He is a very real character, and I've known a man like him that I felt a great deal of pity for. I feel like he is weak in many ways and isn't making too much of an effort to change his life. He's arrogant and drinks heavily and doesn't seem to care much about his daughter until tragedy strikes.

I still find Pete a mystery. Is he a compassionate? Apparently. Is he responsible? No. Is he caught up the in seventies style party culture? Yes. Does he have an intellectual curiosity? Does he have a plan? Does he love? Does he have friends and interests beyond drinking and work? I do not know. But then relative to Cecil, Pearl, Ben, Mary, his wife and friends, perhaps Pete is quite normal. Despite having a cold father he appears to have had a fairly comfortable childhood compared to anyone else in the novel.
I think the author has created a dark enough atmosphere and that it is time to move the plot forward.

Pete!s persistence in pursuing the Pearls is noteworthy and a credit to his devotion to his profession. I just finished reading his compassionate treatment of Pearl who has suffered snow blindness. Pete is patient, caring, as he nurses this man who tried to kill him and who still presents a potential danger.

In terms of this novel representing the American landscape, I have spent time in this part of Montana (quite a few years back) and the descriptions of nature are accurate. I like the reference to the ash falling from the Mt. St. Helen's explosion. I lived in northern Idaho at that time, and exoerienced at least six inches of ash covering everything, That day truly had an apocalyptic feel to it. I can recall long before the ash clouds arrived, the birds and all of nature suddenly becoming quiet in the middle of a beautiful May Day. Then to the west, we could see the dark ash clouds approaching. While we knew from the news what was occurring, it did cause us to discuss what the experience of volcanoes must have been like for people in the days before tv and radio news, never mind the days before the scientific understanding existed. Mythology never seemed so real before!

So, it is no wonder that the paranoia of a man like Pearl would surmise that this meant the end of the world had occurred. And to experience that event, and then snow blindness months later! In his image of the world, the country, his fundamentalist faith, of course he thought he was smited by God.

I have wandered but Pearl is a representative of the American landscape that we do not often see in fiction, but not because he is poor, but because he represents all of those individuals and groups who are anti-government survivalists - there are many branches of these people, each with their own particular brand of beliefs. At this point in the novel, Henderson has set an ominous, foreboding tone of future scenes in the novel. Pearl is known by people - pawnbrokers, university professors, those interested in numismatics. I think of the Unabomber, of Timothy McVeigh, and so many other extremists who are geographically scattered across the country.

I must keep reading to see where Henderson will take this as well as to see what occurs with the development of Pete's character. For Pete, while he was caring and compassionate, he is still very conflicted.

I think Pete is empathetic towards his clients. However desensitized to his job. I think the alcoholism is his way of dealing with his life. The characters are definitely not sunshine and roses. Every single character has flaws, making bad decisions, and possibly mentally ill. I find this book interesting so far.

Of course they're worthy of representation in literary fiction, or any fiction. if they are underrepresented, I think it is because literary fiction should hold a great truth. For most people who are writing in this genre poverty isn't their truth. Most writers are middle class.